The Crucibe - the movie and the play essays

The Crucibe - the movie and the play essays When comparing the Federalist and Anti-Federalist views on the ratification of the United States Constitution, one must consider their respective principles. It can be argued that each side believes firmly that its views are of primary importance. However, one must surmise which side best reflects the principles set forth for the Declaration. It was a time of intense debate between the Anti-Federalist and Federalist with regard to what, if any, ratification of the Constitution. The first draft of the Constitution was written in 1787. The period of discord lasted through 1789 with the ratification of the Constitution. Papers were written by both sides citing significant points as to whether, or not, the ratification should take place. The Anti-Federalists were opposed to the ratification of the Constitution. Authors of the intense Anti-Federalist papers used pseudonyms. The writings of the Anti-Federalists focused on how a powerful national government would weaken the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists believed the new republic should be rooted in virtue. They argued that a powerful national government would behoove those with vested economic interests. Further, Anti-Federalists would rather rely on trust then coercion to enforce laws. Hence, because the Anti-Federalists believed a successful republic required virtue and because they feared tyranny, they opposed any ratification of the Constitution. The Federalists, on the other hand, argued in favor of the ratification of the Constitution. The Federalist Papers were written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 15, suggests the necessary and proper clause of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution concerned Anti-Federalists, as they believed it would mean the end of independent state governments. However, Hamilton argued that any government must have the ability to enforce the powers granted to it ...